Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 1.7, Firefox 0.9 Release Candidates Out
An anonymous reader writes "mozilla.org have released what are expected to be the final release candidates for their next versions: Mozilla 1.7RC3 (MozillaZine article; download) should iron out any final bugs in what will replace 1.4 as the new stable branch and Firefox 0.9RC (MozillaZine article; download) features the new default theme ported from Mac OS on Windows (though please bear in mind that the theme is nowhere near finished yet). The final releases of these versions are due very soon."
What with all the changing standards on the web, we need browsers to continue to evolve and do... the same thing as before.
Download 0.9, and it owns! Yet again Mozilla comes out with an awesome browser ;). I've always loved the tabs, and the best part is that no matter how much adware I have on my system, it never pops up, because I don't use IE ;)
Am I the only one confused by a "release candidate" for version 0.9?
It's not even 1.0 yet, you can't rely on it to be stable (although I have found 0.8 to work better than IE, which is supposedly stable).
Why not call it 0.85 if it's not 0.9?
And the easiest way to try it is to assign mozilla the big blue "E" icon for Internet Explorer.
The hardest part (in my experience) for people to make the switch is that they're so used to loading IE, and don't think to look for the little dragon-head icon. Point the "E" to Mozilla and you'll be up to speed in no time.
-9mm-
Haha, I would have never noticed. Ah, but this is forgivable because there never was a Linux installer before.
I think I'll go file that bug if nobody has beat me to it.
Heh?! I convinced some randomer from archery to install firefox, and not only did he not get lost and isn't a geek, but he also said he found it much better than IE.
I can't remember Mozilla, but Firefox is incredibly easy and intuitive.
im in ur
Most of IE is loaded when Windows starts. Compare the load time of IE with the time Mozilla takes to start the SECOND time you run it (when its files are in cache) if you want a valid comparison. And then, hard to say which is the fastest.
And Mozilla still has the best security, tabbed browsing, and so on...
I've been using Fire[bird|fox] for about a year - and I just can't get over the fact that the installer is so tiny: 4.7 mb ..
Because rather than communicate clearly with the theme author or the community, the core devs made a decision and kept it secret from everyone until release was imminent, to the detriment of the project IMO. The crappy part is that, at this point, the chances of this poor decision being reversed are slim to none as it'd mean the core devs losing face.
I'm all for change and improvement, but this is a step back for Firefox as far as acceptance by the average user goes. The old theme was excellent in that it was close enough to IE to be familiar, yet different enough to be unique in its own right. In the end, it doesn't matter how good your software is, if the average user is turned off by the default interface, they're not going to use it.
but the curve is too high for non-geeks
Not to sound 'elitist', but if these people have that big of an issue switching browsers, they either shouldn't be using one, or need to undergo training. Generally you just tell people that 'favorites' and 'bookmarks' are the same thing, and hardly anyone really cares.
Back, forward, refresh and stop buttons are pretty self explanitory - and the url bar is basically the same. If people can't figure these things out they shouldn't be on the web either.
Does Ctrl+N create a new window that is a duplicate/clone of the current window?
Is that the behavior you desire? If so, I must admit my confusion as to why you'd want two browser windows with the same page loaded at the same time. And if your purpose is to follow links from a page while keeping the page itself around, opening links in tabs to perform that function is %1000 more efficient than opening new windows (and reloading the original page into the new window each time).
While it is true that IE does not have a whitelist feature for ActiveX controls, you can get the same protective functionality. You can set your security level to prompt to install ActiveX, or simply disable altogether.
Your post seems to suggest that all ActiveX controls are blindly downloaded and run, which is clearly not the case. A smart user (not too many of them) will know how to disable ActiveX installations.
a) Are you sure it's the same HTML/stylesheet/etc? Some broken sites try to alter their content for the user agent.
b) It could be that the stylesheet is broken and ASSumes the fonts and sizes being used are the Windows defaults, and not the Linux values you're using.
c) Blame it on Canada.
So there is no need to patch IE.
Unless you're also removing the IE code from your Windows system (which, as Microsoft alleges, is impossible), you still really do need to keep IE well-patched, even if you make Firefox the default browser.
While most applications that hook into the Windows API for web stuff respect the preferred browser settings, there are still many that don't. Click on a link in the wrong IRC client or mailreader, and IE might pop up regardless of your browser preference. Or maybe you have to visit one of the rare sites that still doesn't work properly in Mozilla, so you fire up IE on purpose.
Bang! You're wide open unless you've been keeping up on your IE patches.
Not even mentioning which, there's no good reason for the default interface of a Windows application to try and emulate the look/feel of an OS X application.
The primary design consideration should be consistency. On Windows, the interface should be Windows-like; on Mac, Mac-like; in KDE or Gnome, KDE- or Gnome-like. If users want to use a different model, that's what themes are for. Provide an OS X theme for WinFirefox, sure, but don't make it the DEFAULT theme.
I know it's a joke, but sheesh.
Debian has all the free browsers, including Firefox, and keeps them up to date.
The Debian "nonfree" packages still include Netscape 4.7, although in the future the Debian project may distance itself from both contrib and nonfree.
And while Debian's "stable" branch is legendary for being a bit behind the times, most people run "unstable" on their desktops, or at least "testing", and those are very up to date.
I'm running Debian unstable on my desktop and I expect to have Firefox 0.9 within a few days.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I installed 0.9 and went "Ahhh! Ugly!". I thought the 0.8 theme was way better. I followed this guys tip now I'm really digging the 0.9 theme. I hope the developers follow suite and make the spacing smaller in the release version.
this strikes me as an inexperienced attitude. have you never run a large website before? can you imagine trying to poll the community on every decision? or ANY decision, for that matter, it doesn't work. people's opinions change with the breeze and rarely have anything to do with logic nor necessarily infer that they'll be best for the project.
i've donated a chunk of change to mozilla for their great browser long ago and i trust that they have our best interests at mind then and now, and thus am looking forward to seeing 0.9.
i've always found the qute theme to be ugly from the get go and have been using this theme for many months, it's easy on the eyes and functions well.
### http://www.gunfinger.com ### greed / tec
A new option to prevent sites from using JavaScript to block the browser's context menu.
Sweet. Few things piss me off more when surfing, than those 2-bit scripts that try to control my alternate mouse buttons. Note to webmasters: if you're worried about people stealing your images, don't put them on the web. Lame Javascript tricks like capturing mousedown events just make me never want to visit your site again (and maybe I'll just disable Javascript and steal your images out of spite).
Just because it isn't GPL'd doesn't mean it wasn't a help to Firefox. 0.8 was by far the most popular of the Firefox releases and it owes a lot of that success to the excelent Qute theme.
You may not agree with their decision to use Qute in the first place, that doesn't change the fact that they were rude to someone who was supporting their efforts by donating his time and tallent.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
What is wrong with font rendering? Both KDE and Firefox should be using freetype to render fonts. There shouldn't be any difference at all between them.
So let me get this straight. Not only did you NOT back up your profile directory, but you also just downloaded and installed a beta on to your primary computer without even bothering to run it on your (or somebody's) test rig to see what it did first?
Ok, I agree. You DO need a warning, but I'm guessing it's not exactly the warning you had in mind.
Is it fascism yet?
He didn't donate his time and talent. People who donate to Open Source projects release their donations as Open Source. He retained his copyright and reserved his rights, which is the exact opposite of donating to a Free software project. He built on Firefox, but his efforts didn't support the project precisely because they made it dependent on closed copyright material. IAs far as Qute is popular, it undermined Firefox; dependency on non-free material is damage to Free software.
I "disagree" with the decision to use Qute in the first place on the grounds that they were foolish not to extract an agreement by Arvid to play by the rules of Free software before making it the default. They set themselves up for this injury. But the injury was inflicted by Arvid's refusal to play by the rules of Free and Open Source software.
It isn't rude to throw a player out of a baseball game for demanding a fourth strike; it's rude to demand a fourth strike. And it isn't rude to reject non-Free contributions from Free software, it's rude to complain about the rejection.
Discover the wonders of Alt-PrtScr...
but it also comes with a theme that is quite gay in comparison to the old one.
Yes, and did you see how jew the colours were? The fonts were quite nigger too.
Asshole.
Not only does the new default theme look like total ass
9 0
.8.
I can't disagree with you there. You've got Ben Goodger to thank for that one.
the "upgrade" also trashed all my extensions
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=817
Oh, and make sure to update, I dunno... like version numbers or something. Everything still says
If you look closely it says "0.8+". All releases before 0.9 final, and after 0.8 final are marked as 0.8+. This is the standard versioning scheme that Mozilla uses and has always used.
Does anyone else feel this entire release was just pushed out the door without any consideration at all just so people could see the new theme, which totally blows?
I highly doubt it was because of the theme. Even the ass who decided to change the theme isn't exactly raving about it. He did this so he wouldn't have to lower himself to, I donno, "negotiate" with Arvid Axelsson (the designer of the previous default theme called "Qute"). Arvid was asked about changing the license of his artwork, he expressed hesitation in doing so, so from there (without informing Arvid) found someone else to create a new default theme and even as Arvid was making checkins to the artwork for Firefox, Ben announced that Arvid was out the door and new artwork was going to be used -- only informing Arvid after the fact. At which point Arvid immediately made it clear that he would be willing to change the license of his artwork had he known what was going on. But Ben insists on wanting to feel like the all mightly dictator of the Firefox project, god forbid lowering himself to negotiate or discuss things with someone who works with him -- simply put a "my way or the highway" attitude (and he has no hesitation to make use of the highway at even the slightest sign of dissent).
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
write an extension...
I sort of wanted that as well, previously. But I've been using the Adblocker extensions for the past six months now, and as it turns out 99.9% of all animated gif:s I do not want to see are part of an ad, which Adblocker kills.
With Adblocker and the Flash click-to-view extension, there is very rarely any unwanted blinking or moving on webpages nowadays.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.